Folks, we need to talk about this Vitamin D trial. I have no stake in this game - take Vitamin D if you want but this pre-print is super sus.

The paper is presented as a randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation in hospitalized patients with COVID. Interesting and important question! And the results appear dramatic:
If true, this would be one of (if not THE most) effective treatments for COVID. But there are problems...
The first clue something is up is that the randomized groups aren't the same size:
It took me a while to figure out why this was, then I saw in the text that INDIVIDUALS were not randomized, WARDS in the hospital were.
OK - 8 wards, 5 randomized to Vitamin D, 3 to usual care. (Why not 4 and 4?? - but whatever). So this is actually a CLUSTER-randomized trial. That means you need to use CLUSTERED statistics to analyze it. They do not.
This is a big problem. But there is more. It seems that, even if the wards were randomized, the PATIENTS weren't randomized to the wards.
In other words, some hospital wards take different patients than others (different risk factors, etc). This is why we see this really weird finding in Table 1:
Baseline vitamin D levels dramatically lower in the "non-treated" group. Why? Preseumaby because different types of people got admitted to the wards than were randomized to usual care.
You'd expect people with low levels of Vitamin D to do worse - that has been shown multiple times - perhaps because higher Vitamin D levels are associated with less comorbidities.
Here's their Kaplan-Meier curve. It doesn't make sense. What do they mean by 'cumulative hazard' of mortality? What units are these? The overall mortality was 10% by their report.
I get frustrated with peer-review too, but this is why it's so important. This is super basic stuff - you don't call your study a randomized trial when it's a cluster randomized trial. And peer-reviewers would 100% have asked them to go back and redo the stats.
The authors could solve this, btw, by releasing a de-identified dataset (including the ward number) for this study. We could analyze it in about an hour at least for topline results using appropriate stats.
And again, is there harm from Vitamin D? Minimal honestly. The harm from promotion of studies like this is tweets like this that try to dissuade people from getting vaccinated and doing other protective measures.
https://t.co/XVmsiajpBr
So please, read skeptically. Pre-prints have been a boon in COVID times but this study is just... not well done. Be aware. (/END)

More from Health

@73inlancs @janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 1/ The 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 government decided pediatric gender care in England would be a monopoly contract (a Labour minister, in 2008), despite all other NHS patients officially being entitled to a choice of providers, & second opinions on diagnoses & treatment, & gave it to GIDS, which has…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 2/…always advocated that trans minors & their families must have no alternative source of care, & subsequent Tory ministers have personally put their signature on renewals of it, and even personally rejected proposals for improvement that have been put forward by NHS England…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 3/…as a result of wider & public consultation. They & their civil servants listen only to GIDS on trans minors - it was GIDS advised against <18s being allowed #GenderRecognition in 2004, & since, on the basis that no one under 18 can be certain of their gender identity, just…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 4/…as many other staff at their trust wrote⬇️ to the press in 2002 (when the first instigator of this case, psychoanalyst Susan Evans was on staff too) that no trans people should be allowed that recognition but needed

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 5/…to "cure" us instead. Yet GIDS proved incapable of defending its super-conservative protocol in court - no doubt because GIDS has always expected challenges to be from patients seeking care more like that elsewhere, arrogantly ignoring that services in countries where the…

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.